Reading group: Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft)
Dec 23 2006 11:03
As the other thread on the platform has degenerated into the usual arguments about platformism I'd like to initate an unofficial reading group strictly based for an inital period on the text itself. Discussions on 'platformism' of the relevence of the document shoudl thus be posted to that other thread - http://libcom.org/forums/thought/the-platform - rather than here.
Given the controversal nature of the platform and the tendency of all threads that touch on it to degenerate into the same old assertions I'd appreciate it if admins could split off such posts to http://libcom.org/forums/thought/the-platform
To avoid the standard semantic arguments I'd suggest using the most recent English translation of the Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft) at
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1000
A PDF pamphlet of this text is at h
ttp://www.zabalaza.net/pdfs/varpams/platform_2006_en.pdf
There are basically three translations
1. The oldest English one which the WSM used which was a translation from the French translation done by Voline. The problem was Voline was politically hostile to the project and appears to have selected some phrases on the basis of being most likely to get anarchists to oppose the project
2. More recent translation from the Russian done by Skirda. The problem with this one is it follows the common French convention of often translating 'anarchism' as 'libertarian communism' and some of the other translations were considered problematic.
3. The most recent Anarkismo.net one based on Skirda's work but restoring 'anarchism' and correcting a number of Skirdas translations from the Russian. It's origin (Anarkismo.net) also means it is closest to being the platform as todays platformists understand it. This is the one at http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1000 Note there are two important changes even in the title including the reinsertion of Draft.
The platform is divided into sections so I suggest we simply take a section a week to get through it with two weeks for the first section as a lot of people will be online less because of the holidays.
Introduction - to Jan 7
General part - to Jan 14
Constructive part - to Jan 21
Organisational part - to Jan 28
In terms of background reading NEFAC have an excellent collection of sources at http://nefac.net/platform
A good starting point might be to ask if the opening paragraphs are still a fair description of much of the anarchist movement today
Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft) wrote:
Despite the force and unquestionably positive character of anarchist ideas, despite the clarity and completeness of anarchist positions with regard to the social revolution, and despite the heroism and countless sacrifices of anarchists in the struggle for Anarchist Communism, it is very telling that in spite of all this, the anarchist movement has always remained weak and has most often featured in the history of working-class struggles, not as a determining factor, but rather as a fringe phenomenon.This contrast between the positive substance and incontestable validity of anarchist ideas and the miserable state of the anarchist movement can be explained by a number of factors, the chief one being the absence in the anarchist world of organizational principles and organizational relations.
In every country the anarchist movement is represented by local organizations with contradictory theory and tactics with no forward planning or continuity in their work. They usually fold after a time, leaving little or no trace.
Dec 26 2006 01:59
#2
Yeah, does seem like a generally accurate statement. There's a lot more tiny propaganda groups than powerful organisations. We need to ask ourselves why.
Dec 26 2006 21:14
#3
I would love to participate in this group. I consider myself a pretty staunch supporter of the Platform, and would relish the opportunity to discuss my interpretations of the platform.
Dec 26 2006 22:26
#4
First I have to buy some more paper, then print the pdf and read it. I can't read long texts off the screen. Can this be a leisurely discussion?
Dec 27 2006 13:13
#5
knightrose wrote:
First I have to buy some more paper, then print the pdf and read it. I can't read long texts off the screen. Can this be a leisurely discussion?
You might have missed the suggested timetable in my post as below
Introduction - to Jan 7
General part - to Jan 14
Constructive part - to Jan 21
Organisational part - to Jan 28
I think that is fairly leisurely for what is a pretty short text but if you want to extend it this is fine with me.
Dec 27 2006 16:31
#6
Nope - tha\t's fine by me. It gets me past the next few days, which also feature my son's 18th birthday party, which is proving hectic to organise.
Jan 5 2007 19:56
#7
H'mm I expected a little more controversy then this even on the first section. We'll be moving on in a couple of days but perhaps I can prod people with the follwing extract which touches on at least two areas of common controversy here on LibCom
Quote:
The anarcho-syndicalist approach does not solve anarchism's organizational difficulty, since anarcho-syndicalism fails to give it priority and is mostly interested in the idea of penetrating and making headway into the world of labour. However, even with a foothold there, there is nothing much to be accomplished in the world of labour if we do not have a general anarchist organization.The only approach which can lead to a solution of the general organizational problem is, as we see it, the recruitment of anarchism's active militants on the basis of specific theoretic, tactical and organizational positions, which is to say on the basis of a more or less perfected, homogeneous programme .
Jan 5 2007 19:59
#8
Joe, I find nothing to disagree with in that statement at all.
I generally believe that an attempt to form an anarchist union will simply end up replicating the currently existing ones, just with fewer members.
Sorry. I've been blown away by the party of the century. I'll do a proper post on Sunday.
Jan 5 2007 20:05
#9
knightrose wrote:
I've been blown away by the party of the century.
Luck you, I've been suffering from the cold of the century all week.
Jan 5 2007 20:08
#10
Quote:
The only approach which can lead to a solution of the general organizational problem is, as we see it, the recruitment of anarchism's active militants on the basis of specific theoretic, tactical and organizational positions, which is to say on the basis of a more or less perfected, homogeneous programme .
holy shite, i haven't read the Platform in a while and had forgotten about that particular bit. I will however keep such a debate to other threads as this is for the swots and not the fighters. 
Jan 5 2007 20:18
#11
Just to mention that in connection with this thread I finally got around to reading Skirdas Nestor Makhno: Anarchy's Cossack. I don't know why it took me so long but I'd throughly recommend it - its quite useful in understanding why today seem some of the more obscure elements of the platform (on the revolutionary army and on the peasantry).
Jan 5 2007 22:22
#12
Thanks for this.
Jan 6 2007 09:39
#13
Quote:
In every country the anarchist movement is represented by local organizations with contradictory theory and tactics with no forward planning or continuity in their work. They usually fold after a time, leaving little or no trace.
I'd guess this bit is not that accurate any more. The two main feds in Britain have been around for a while now 
As indeed have you guys in WSM. However, these days we're still bedevilled by anti-organisational tendencies passing themselves off as anarchism and a militant liberal wing of activists whose main interest is what protest to do next, rather than how to link them all up in a sustainable way.
Interestingly, both the A(C)F and WSM were set up with this particular paragraph in mind.
Jan 6 2007 17:34
#14
knightrose wrote:
Quote:
In every country the anarchist movement is represented by local organizations with contradictory theory and tactics with no forward planning or continuity in their work. They usually fold after a time, leaving little or no trace.Interestingly, both the A(C)F and WSM were set up with this particular paragraph in mind.
Big it up to the Mak-Daddy then.
Jan 12 2007 18:31
#15
One thing I've noticed while re-reading The Platform is the use of the language and vocabulary of the dialectic. So, I read the introduction and saw some pretty interesting uses of the dialectic. I can see that this use of the dialectic must have been one reason that the Platform was accused of being Bolshevism.
Let's start with the title:
Quote:
The Organizational Platform of The General Union of Anarchists
This title illustrates the dialectica category of general to specific, so a general synthesis of anarchist elements. When a syntheis occurs, the thesis of two elements combines and turns the preceding element into its opposite. The society that anarchism creates is communism, as Malatesta said, and the negation of anarchism is communism. The contradiction must be that the organization is central and communist, but the methadology of to the struggle must be anarchist.
So, the title is calling for a general synthesis that's specifically anarchist. General is the thesis - the thesis is the form and the content is the contradiction between the thesis and antithesis. A synthesis of thesis will illustrate antithesis in contrast.
This platform is not a reintroduction of Bolshevism, so much an introduction of the dialectic to the anarchist movement. An introduction that is sorely needed as many of the theoritical mistakes anarchists constantly make can be easily corrected with the dialectic, but for some reason I can't understand, anarchists eschew the dialectic.
Quote:
Such a condition in revolutionary anarchism, if we take it as a whole, can only be described as chronic general disorganization. This disease of disorganization has invaded the organism of the anarchist movement like yellow fever and has plagued it for decades.
This "disease" is a tenent and thesis of anarchy, which can be traced to anarchists refusing to use the dialectic. It would require a negation of several key anarchist principles to overcome the historica rational for why anarchists are what they are and anarchist organizaton is an oxymoron.
Quote:
Dispersion spells ruination; cohesion guarantees life and development. This law of social struggle is equally applicable to classes and parties.
This is a very dialectic statement -- natural laws
-- two poles in contradition to each other.
this also illustrates social struggle as a basic tenet, correctly using the univeral objective as not just class struggle, but social struggle -- the correct universal contingent necessary for social change to predicated upon.
Quote:
Anarchism is no beautiful fantasy, no abstract notion of philosophy, but a social movement of the working masses; for that reason alone it must gather its forces into one organization, constantly agitating, as demanded by the reality and strategy of the social class struggle.
A classic example of the dialectical materialist understanding. The fact that primacy is placed on history. Relative to the class struggle multiple expressions steering from within the class struggle, while creating a communist world within the working class through anarchist struggle.
This statement mirrors the PLP and their understanding that one party, one organization, one world struggling in the interests of the working class.
Quote:
Broadly speaking, nearly all of the active militants of anarchism were against dissipated action and dreamed of an anarchist movement united by a common purpose and common tactics.
As it has a common goal! Commonality does not mean a vulgar sameness, but a universal general. A common goal should generally give birth to collective struggle.
Quote:
It is not enough, though, to simply state the vital need for such an organization. It is also necessary to establish a means for creating it.
Very dialectic as practice is primary. Practice leads to praxis and an advance in theory.
Quote:
The anarcho-syndicalist approach does not solve anarchism's organizational difficulty, since anarcho-syndicalism fails to give it priority
it = anarchism. Anarcho-Syndicalism gives the priority to the syndical, and not the Anarchsim, and,in hindsight, the FAI splintering illustrates the need to have had a specifically anarchist organization .
These are just a few of my thoughts about the platform. I do believe that the platforms introduction is a more than accurate portrayal of the modern anarchist movement, though, the the modern anarchist communist movement is a welcome advance in both theory and practice.
Sorry it took so long to post to the reading group, as I've been busy as fuck.
Jan 13 2007 00:32
#16
go see a doctor.
Jan 13 2007 16:14
#17
Quote:
holy shite, i haven't read the Platform in a while and had forgotten about that particular bit. I will however keep such a debate to other threads as this is for the swots and not the fighters.
What's wrong with having a homogeneous programme to recruit people on. I'm all for that.
Jan 25 2007 00:04
#18
Did anyone actually read it then? Timescale was meant to be:
Quote:
Introduction - to Jan 7
General part - to Jan 14
Constructive part - to Jan 21
Organisational part - to Jan 28
Now for me, I agree with the generally known parts of the document (organizational unity and so on) so I won't dwell on all that. But re-reading this document, I found that it also attempts (badly) to go beyond tactics to actual vision:
Quote:
To that end it [anarchist communism] creates an economic and social basis that fuses the country's economic and social life into a harmonious whole and guarantees every individual parity with everyone else and affords the maximum well-being to all.
Ah that's nice. But how does it do that then? Where are the details?
Quote:
In the new system of production, the functions of organization will devolve upon specially-created agencies...: workers' councils, workplace committees or workers' administrations of factories and plants.
A lot of agencies - which is in charge: the workplace committees in each factory and plant, or the workers' councils? Who wins if (when) those two types of agencies disagree with each other?
Quote:
These agencies, liaising with one another at the level of municipality, province and then country, will make up the municipal, provincial and thereafter general (federal) institutions for the management and administration of production.
What does liasing with one another mean? What happens when the agencies disagree? Which agency is boss?
Quote:
production overseen by workers' administration bodies elected by the masses
How do such administration bodies work? What does "overseen" mean? Does it mean that they issue binding orders to producers, act as an uber-government of which Stalin would be proud; or do they confine themselves to issuing vague guidance which the workers in each factory or plant are free to sneer at?
Of course Makhno isn't around to answer these questions, they're purely rhetorical. The Parecon project and Libertarian Municipalism and the like have more recently attempted to deal with these issues. They're not simple issues.
But they leave gaping holes in the document as it stands. And it would have been just as bad had it been left out altogether.
After all, you can have the most brilliant organization in the world, with the best line on unity of theory, tactics, and so on - but it will benefit you nothing without a reason for the organization, without political aims, without a manifesto that will appeal to the great mass of ordinary people - otherwise, what is the point of all your organizational brilliance?
The document itself, in its introduction, admits this:
Quote:
The only approach which can lead to a solution of the general organizational problem is, as we see it, the recruitment of anarchism's active militants on the basis of specific theoretic, tactical and organizational positions, which is to say on the basis of a more or less perfected, homogeneous programme.Drawing up such a programme is one of the primary tasks which the social struggle of recent decades demands of anarchists. And it is to this task that the Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad has dedicated a substantial part of its efforts.
The “Organizational Platform” published below represents the outline, the skeleton of such a programme and must serve as the first step towards gathering anarchist forces into a single active, revolutionary anarchist collective capable of struggle: the General Union of Anarchists.
We have no illusions about the various deficiencies in the platform. As in any new, practical and, at the same time, critical departure, there are undoubtedly gaps in the platform.
Which is a call to arms for us to take up that task and complete a more or less perfected, homogeneous programme which an organization could be built around.
More like this
- The Platform
- Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft)
- New translation of 'the platform'
- Dublin meeting: The Platform:Relevance to anarchist movement
- Especifismo: The anarchist praxis of building popular movements and revolutionary organization in South America by Adam Weaver
Comrade, thank you for this!
That's going in someone's Christmas present (along with nice other stuff, honest
)